If you believe in the God of the Bible, why try to prove it logically?

[Zarith]

Common arguments for the existence of God (such as the ontological argument, the teleological argument, first cause, cosmology, etc), only get you as far as an abstract notion of some sort of god -- the kind that philosophers talk about (if you accept the arguments, that is).

If you believe that the God of the Bible really exists and has the properties ascribed to him by this book, then other means are required to justify belief in this specific God. Typically this comes down to either scriptural authority, or divine revelation, or some combination of the two (for example, belief in the truth of the message of the biblical prophets is belief in both of these things). Am I omitting anything here? Note that I am including 'personal experience with God' under the umbrella of revelation, as God revealing himself to you.

But if you are willing to accept revelation / scripture as vehicles for determining truth from falsehood, then what is the point in attempting to construct a logical argument for the existence of God in the abstract? You already have what you consider proof of his existence, and a logical argument won't prove that your particular God exists. If you are trying to convince someone, they will still have to accept scriptural authority or divine revelation, will they not?

If belief in revelation / scripture is both necessary and sufficient, and logic alone is insufficient -- why bother?

Why bother explain the God of the bible? Because most disbelief is based on a stereotype or a dark age idea that God must remain in the realm of magic. Matter of fact you thread here is based on that idea. When in fact if the God of the bible is the God of creation/The natural universe, then God is the the being who placed all of the process in motion that science is just now able to label. Yes it is true durning the dark ages being able to manipulate these processes was magic to them, but as humanity further learns of these processes, it does not mean God is somehow forbidden to use them.
The integration of God with modern terms in our minds is the first step of seeing the truth before you.

Typical theist circumlocution. You attempt to inject "dark ages" and "magic" into my argument when it was not contingent on those, then go on to argue that a metaphysical sort of god is logically possible, when this does not address the question I posed.

On top of this, I know that you believe in more specific and more numerous claims about God than can be supported with the arguments in question, but you choose not to defend those claims, choosing instead to regurgitate a poorly-formulated version of the first cause argument, when the point of the thread was that these very types of arguments are not necessary and won't prove what you want them to prove.

If you want to talk about the dark ages and the role of the church during these times, that is a conversation I and (I suspect) many atheists will be happy to have with you, but it's probably best suited for a different thread.